Patent Information for Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited

Petitions for Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited

News

District Judge William Alsup in the Northern District of California has ruled on a motion questioning whether Uniloc Luxembourg S.a.r.l. (f/k/a Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.) and Uniloc USA, Inc., subsidiaries of Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, had standing to sue at the time that they filed a raft of lawsuits against Apple in their original forum, the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Alsup ruled that the Uniloc plaintiffs did have standing, rejecting Apple’s argument that a purported “default” under a set of December 2014 agreements between Uniloc and Fortress Investment Group LLC, as subsequently and repeatedly amended, had shifted sufficient rights to Fortress to destroy Uniloc’s standing. Apple had also opposed a motion to add Uniloc 2017 LLC as a plaintiff, arguing that joining new patent owner Uniloc 2017 could not fix a lapse in standing caused by a May 2018 transfer of the Uniloc patent portfolio from Uniloc Luxembourg to Uniloc 2017. Judge Alsup ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, granting their motion to join Uniloc 2017.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has asked District Judge William H. Alsup for permission to jump into the standing fight between Apple and subsidiaries of NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. Last year, Apple moved to dismiss multiple cases filed against it, arguing that after a May 2018 deal between Uniloc and Fortress Investment Group LLC, the plaintiffs lack standing to assert the patents-in-suit. The EFF, a self-described “donor-funded, non-profit civil liberties organization” with “more than 39,000 active members”, has now moved to intervene in those cases (3:18-cv-00360, 3:18-cv-00363, 3:18-cv-00572, 3:18-cv-00365) for a limited purpose: to oppose motions to file under seal the agreements that apparently apportion rights in the large portfolio of patents that Uniloc transferred to Fortress last May, as well as large parts of the parties’ briefs arguing about the legal consequences flowing from those agreements. EFF contends that those briefs’ heavy redactions, supported only by “rote justifications” in declarations filed by counsel for Uniloc, rob the public of its common law and First Amendment rights of access.

In November 2018, Fortress Investment Group, LLC subsidiary Uniloc 2017 LLC was hit by a series of inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Apple as the two parties continue to brief a contentious dispute over standing in related district court litigation. November also saw the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institute trial in IPRs involving Japanese patent monetization firm IP Bridge, Inc. and issue final decisions in IPRs against Quarterhill Inc. and Alacritech, Inc., the latter an operating company-turned-NPE formed by SCSI inventor Larry Boucher.

In May 2018, Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited (Uniloc) assigned more than 600 US patent assets, as well as a number of foreign counterparts—seemingly the bulk of its portfolio—to Fortress Investment Group LLC subsidiary Uniloc 2017 LLC, leading to an avalanche of new litigation. This deal represented the deepening of an existing relationship between the two parties, as a December 2014 security agreement between Uniloc and Fortress indicates that the latter has been funding the former’s litigation for years. That security agreement has now become the focus of a standing dispute in litigation filed by Uniloc prior to its May deal with Fortress. In an October motion to dismiss, defendant Apple has argued that by relinquishing certain licensing rights under the security agreement, and other related agreements, Uniloc’s former patent-holding subsidiary Uniloc Luxembourg S.à r.l. (f/k/a Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.) and its purported successor-in-interest, Uniloc 2017, were deprived of constitutional standing. Uniloc has just fired back, arguing in a November 12 opposition that the rights transferred in the security agreement did not deprive Uniloc Luxembourg of standing under Federal Circuit law. Meanwhile, Fortress has apparently reconsidered the posture of the cases that it has been filing since the May deal with Uniloc, refiling late last week over 40 of those suits with only Uniloc 2017 as the named plaintiff against defendants that include Alphabet (Google), Apple, AT&T, Barnes & Noble, BlackBerry, Cardo Systems, Cisco, Disney (ABC, ESPN), Hulu, Huawei, LG Electronics, Samsung, Terrano, Verizon, and ZTE.

By the end of the first week of October, Fortress Investment Group LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited had filed four cases against Alphabet (Google) this year. Since then, the floodgates have remained steadily open, with the NPEs hitting Google ten more times over the subsequent weeks. In May, Uniloc, a prolific plaintiff on its own, transferred over 600 US patent assets to Fortress, including much of a large portfolio that Uniloc had acquired in January 2018 from Pendrell Corporation. While many of the new cases against Google assert one of those former Pendrell assets, homegrown Uniloc patents and patents acquired from separate sources are at issue in others of those ten cases—and Google is not alone. Three recent Fortress-Uniloc cases have brought the total number of cases filed against Apple since the beginning of 2017 north of 20; a new case against Samsung joins more than ten such others over that same time period; and in recent weeks, the NPEs have also tagged Disney (ABC, ESPN), Hulu, and Netflix with one case apiece.

The filing spree of Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited continues unabated after handing over the reins of its monetization efforts to Fortress Investment Group LLC earlier this year. Last week alone, plaintiffs related to these entities jointly filed a new suit against Apple in the Western District of Texas, one against Cisco, two against Hike, and four against Alphabet (Google), all in the Eastern District of Texas. Since its acquisition of a large portfolio from Pendrell Corporation subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC this past January, Uniloc has been filing new lawsuits on nearly a weekly basis over those patents, on its own, before its transfer of over 600 US patent assets to Fortress in May, and together with Fortress since. That shift in patent ownership came as Fortress announced a new, $400M IP fund focused on patent assertion.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw activity in August 2018 involving a variety of frequent litigants. This included petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed against two NPEs controlled by Fortress Investment Group LLC, INVT SPE LLC and Uniloc 2017 LLC, the latter of which has in recent months cofiled a barrage of lawsuits with subsidiaries of Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited (Uniloc). The PTAB also instituted trial in August for IPRs against Uniloc 2017 and some of its campaign coplaintiffs, and in an IPR against an NPE controlled by patent attorney Brian Yates, whose US litigation has waned as he pursues a new patent licensing initiative through his company iPEL, Inc. Finally, the PTAB issued final decisions in August for IPRs against Uniloc, Empire IP LLC, and Quarterhill Inc.

Fortress Investment Group LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited have added two additional patents to one of their existing litigation campaigns with new suits against AT&T (AT&T Mobility) (2:18-cv-00379) and Verizon (Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless) (2:18-cv-00380). The plaintiffs accuse AT&T of infringing a patent generally related to system control using a “wireless terminal” through the provision of the Smart Home Manager mobile app, as used to change settings for a home Wi-Fi network; Verizon, of infringing a patent broadly related to the delivery of data through “beacon devices” through the use of Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) beacons in its retail stores, as used to send notifications to mobile devices running the Verizon app. The two complaints each assert additional patents already in suit in the campaign, all of them part of a large, January 2018 acquisition from Pendrell Corporation, with ownership moving to Fortress subsidiary Uniloc 2017 LLC this past May.

Last week, RPXreported that a subsidiary of Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited had transferred more than 600 US assets to Fortress Investment Group LLC in May—the same month that Fortress announced a new, $400M IP fund focused on patent assertion. The transacted portfolio, which includes foreign counterparts in Asia and Europe, comprises former Pendrell Corporation assets (including patents originating with the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Philips, and IBM); homegrown Uniloc patents (naming CEO Craig Etchegoyen as inventor); and patents acquired from Ayalogic, Fullpower Technologies, HP Enterprise, and Paragon Solutions.Subsets of those patents have appeared in a recent barrage of new litigation against Amazon, BlackBerry, Huawei, Microsoft, Samsung, and ZTE (with some defendants hit with four or more lawsuits each), filed by subsidiaries of Fortress and Uniloc. Fortress’s new ownership of the majority of Uniloc’s former US patent portfolio, together with its role as coplaintiff in Uniloc’s latest suits, indicates that Fortress—not Uniloc—is likely now in control.

In July 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw the first new petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed against a Native American tribe since the Board’s March ruling that IPRs against tribes are not barred by sovereign immunity, a decision that was upheld by the Federal Circuit on July 20. Institution decisions were also issued by the Board in July for IPRs against Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited and Sound View Innovations, LLC, among other notable plaintiffs. In addition, the PTAB issued final decisions throughout July for IPRs against a variety of other NPEs, from Intellectual Ventures LLC (which has continued to pursue its existing campaigns but has seemingly stopped filing new US litigation) to smaller entities like Andrea Electronics Corporation and XPRT Ventures LLC as well as individual inventor Daniel L. Flamm.

Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, through controlled subsidiaries and at least in some instances with the apparent backing of Fortress Investment Group LLC, has continued to roll out new cases in 2018, hitting Amazon (with four additional cases), BlackBerry (four new cases), Huawei (one case), Microsoft (one case), Samsung (one case), and ZTE (four cases) just last week. One of the new suits against Amazon returns to Uniloc’s earlier litigation strategy, asserting a patent naming Uniloc cofounder Craig Etchegoyen as inventor, but the other new suits continue the assertion of former Philips patents received this past January from publicly traded NPE Pendrell Corporation. Pendrell sold hundreds of patent assets from its “Pendragon” portfolio (held by subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC) to Uniloc in January—the patents deriving from multiple original sources, including the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) and IBM as well as Philips. Nearly all of the new complaints have been filed in Texas, confirming Uniloc’s commitment to litigate in that state, if not solely in the Eastern District, after the US Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision in May 2017.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed a new case against Box (3:18-cv-03432), asserting a patent generally related to replacing substrings in a file or directory pathname with tokens. At issue in the complaint is Box’s “content management and file sharing software”, including Business, Individual, and Enterprise editions. This campaign is the tenth that Uniloc has initiated this year, all asserting patents acquired from publicly traded NPE Pendrell Corporation, which sold hundreds of patent assets from its “Pendragon” portfolio (held by subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC) to Uniloc in January—the patents derive from multiple original sources, including the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had an eventful April, capped by two US Supreme Court decisions addressing inter partes review (IPR). While the Court found IPR constitutional in Oil States Energy Services, in its companion decision in SAS Institute, the Court also barred the PTAB’s practice of instituting trial as to a subset of the challenged claims (partial institution decisions). As a result, since those April 24 opinions, the PTAB has begun to institute trial for all challenged claims for IPR petitions where the petitioner is likely to prevail as to at least one claim (and for all petitioned grounds, a practice not required by SAS Institute). Among the affected IPRs instituted in late April were two against Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, while the PTAB saw IPR petitions filed in April against Oyster Optics, LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. The Board also issued final decisions throughout April in IPRs against ChriMar Systems, Inc.; Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd.; Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg; Skky, Inc.; and Uniloc.

Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited’s barrage of litigation against Apple continues unabated. Its subsidiaries Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed two new cases against the tech giant, one (1:18-cv-00293) asserting a patent generally related to blocking the normal operation of a “mobile radiotelephony device” under certain circumstances, and the other (1:18-cv-00296) to managing the reconfiguration of an electronic device. Uniloc acquired both patents from publicly traded NPE Pendrell Corporation, which sold hundreds of patent assets from its “Pendragon” portfolio (held by subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC) to Uniloc earlier this year. The transaction appears to be the divestiture that Pendrell described in a February SEC filing as comprising “patents related to cellular and digital wireless devices and infrastructure” from multiple sources, including Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips.

In late March, the USPTO made public five patent assignments from various Pendrell Corporation subsidiaries to Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. This transaction appears to be the one that Pendrell disclosed in a February SEC filing—a divestiture it described as comprising “patents related to cellular and digital wireless devices and infrastructure” from multiple sources, including Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips. Collectively, the transfers assigned over 445 assets to Uniloc, including patents now being asserted by the NPE in seven recently initiated litigation campaigns.

So far this year, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have kicked off two of their seven new litigation campaigns by filing suit against Amazon, asserting patents recently acquired from Pendrell Corporation. Uniloc, however, has also added cases against Amazon to a couple of the many litigation campaigns that it began last year. The latest (2:18-cv-00123) is a case over a patent received from HP Enterprise, generally related to using a “palm-sized computer” to control a “service” on a network. Uniloc accuses Amazon of infringement through provision of its Alexa platform that allows, for example, certain smartphones and tablets to control other devices, including “Echo Dot, Echo Show, Echo, Tap, and video cameras”.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) continues its 2018 assertion of patents apparently acquired from Pendrell Corporation. The NPE has opened up two more litigation campaigns—its sixth and seventh so far this year—each with a new case against Amazon (2:18-cv-00080, 2:18-cv-00081) filed in the Eastern District of Texas. In the first, Uniloc asserts a single patent generally related to “borrowing” media files, targeting Amazon’s Kindle e-readers and web service (and related servers). The Kindle platform, books, and app are the subject of the second lawsuit, over one patent as well, this one broadly concerning distributing “digital assets” across a network. A few days later Uniloc added Amazon to two campaigns (2:18-cv-00091, 2:18-cv-00092) that it began in 2017, each asserting a single patent acquired from HP Enterprise.

Last year, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) initiated 11 new litigation campaigns, all but one of them with a suit filed against Apple. In the subsequent months, Uniloc added LG Electronics (LGE) as a defendant in seven of those campaigns; Huawei in six of them; HTC, Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), and Samsung in four of them; and a few other companies in just one. 2018 appears to be shaping up similarly. Uniloc has so far opened up five new litigation campaigns this year, each with a suit against Apple, quickly adding Samsung to three of them; Logitech to one, and now, LGE to four (3:18-cv-00557, 3:18-cv-00559, 3:18-cv-00560, 3:18-cv-00561). The patents asserted were apparently acquired from Pendrell Corporation subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC, and the accused products form a long list of smartphones, tablets, wireless speakers, and many other computing devices.

After filing multiple new cases in February, first against Apple, then Samsung, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) closed out the month with a suit against Logitech (5:18-cv-01304). The patent asserted, generally related to delivering data through “beacon devices”, is one among several that Uniloc has apparently acquired from Pendrell Corporation subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC. In a 10-K recently filed with the SEC, Pendrell indicated that it had divested the “majority” of its “Pendragon portfolio”, which contained “patents related to cellular and digital wireless devices and infrastructure” from multiple sources, including the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips. Logitech joins Apple as defendants in this campaign, with Uniloc’s infringement allegations focused on devices that “utilize Bluetooth Low Energy version 4.0 and above”.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have started 2018 off much as they spent 2017—first suing Apple and then adding other defendants to the new campaigns. Uniloc has filed seven new complaints in the Western District of Texas, each accusing Apple (1:18-cv-00158, 1:18-cv-00159, 1:18-cv-00161, 1:18-cv-00163, 1:18-cv-00164, 1:18-cv-00165, 1:18-cv-00166) of infringing at least one patent that the plaintiff has apparently acquired from Pendrell Corporation subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC. As RPX noted last week, in a 10-K recently filed with the SEC, Pendrell indicated that it had divested the “majority” of its “Pendragon portfolio”, which contained “patents related to cellular and digital wireless devices and infrastructure” from multiple sources, including the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips. The accused Apple devices, across the seven new complaints, include certain models of the iPhone, iPad, MacBook, iMac, Watch, and iPod, as well as the Magic Keyboard, Mouse, and Trackpad; Apple TV (and Apple TV 4K); and Airpods. The day after Uniloc’s filing flurry against Apple, the NPE filed four complaints against Samsung (2:18-cv-00039, 2:18-cv-00041, 2:18-cv-00042, 2:18-cv-00044), identifying long lists of similar phone, tablet, and other computing devices as the accused products.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) remained at the center of a heated public debate over the issue of tribal sovereign immunity in December 2017. Motions to dismiss filed by the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in IPRs against several Allergan patents—acquired by the tribe and licensed back to their original owner to shield them through sovereign immunity—remain pending as the PTAB considers a wave of amicus briefs filed on both sides of the issue. The Board has since denied the tribe’s motion for an oral hearing on discovery related to alleged bias held by the USPTO and its leadership, and that bias’s effect on the selection of judges for the tribe’s case. Meanwhile, among the petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed in December was one brought by Apple against MEC Resources, LLC, an entity owned by another Native American tribe, which took over an existing lawsuit asserting the challenged patent against Apple in the fall. Also in December, the Board issued institution decisions in petitions against Iridescent Networks, Inc.; Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC; and publicly traded Quarterhill Inc.; while an IPR against Packet Intelligence LLC ended in an adverse judgment after petitioner Sandvine prevailed in a November trial.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have continued their string of consecutive weeks adding defendants to the dozen campaigns begun in 2017, last week adding Logitech (3:17-cv-06733) to their campaign asserting a patent broadly related to exercising remote control over a wireless network. Uniloc initiated this campaign by suing Apple in July, adding cases against LG Electronics, HTC, Huawei, Peel Technologies, Wink Labs, and Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), in that order. The campaign has targeted various devices (e.g., smartphones, smartwatches, home security products) used to control other devices wirelessly. At issue in the Logitech suit are Harmony remotes, with related apps.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) continue to grow the campaigns begun in 2017, of which there have been a dozen so far, even as USPTO assignment records suggest more litigation from the NPE may be coming. Last week, Uniloc added Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) (1:17-cv-01657) and Wink Labs (1:17-cv-01656) to a campaign over a patent, received from HP Enterprise (HPE), broadly related to exercising remote control over a wireless network. Motorola Mobility (1:17-cv-01658) was also added to the Uniloc campaign litigating another patent received from HPE, this one generally related to the exchange of information from a “portable computer” and a telephone, while Huawei (2:17-cv-01746) has been added to a sixth Uniloc campaign in 2017, that one litigating a former Fullpower Technologies patent broadly related to waking up a device based on its motion.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have ramped up litigation in 2017, already filing a dozen new campaigns, and unlike in years past, most of the 2017 cases filed have been over patents developed elsewhere and later acquired by Uniloc. In May 2017, Uniloc acquired five patents generally related to the interaction of mobile devices and their users’ motion and originally developed at Fullpower Technologies; it has since initiated three campaigns asserting one or more of those patents, this past week adding cases against Huawei to two of those campaigns. Multiple additional 2017 campaigns of Uniloc assert patents acquired from HP Enterprise, and this past week, the NPE began yet another new campaign, this one asserting a patent, broadly concerned with display of data through a web browser, apparently acquired from IBM against Oracle subsidiary NetSuite.

This past week, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) added Huawei (2:17-cv-00722) to their campaign litigating a single former HP Enterprise (HPE) patent generally related to changing how a battery is charged based on temperature. Smartphones, smartwatches, and tablets are at issue throughout the campaign, which has already hit Apple, HTC, Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), and LG Electronics (LGE). Huawei is accused of infringement through the manufacture and sale of certain of its smartphones.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have continued filing new litigation for yet another consecutive week, adding additional suits to three of the 11 campaigns that the NPE has initiated in 2017. Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) has been added to two campaigns, the first case (1:17-cv-01526) asserting one former HP Enterprise (HPE) patent generally related to changing how a battery is charged based on temperature, and the second (1:17-cv-01527) asserting another former HPE patent generally related to the remote display of graphics from a mobile device. The third new case asserts yet another patent received from HPE, generally related to using a “palm-sized computer” to control a “service” on a network, this one against Binatone Electronics (Exclusive Group LLC d/b/a Binatone North America) (1:17-cv-03962).

The Federal Circuit has upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) invalidation of a software activation patent asserted by Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited in more than 65 lawsuits against over 145 defendants (2016-2000). The invalid patent is the NPE’s most widely litigated, in a campaign started 14 years ago. In an October 23 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s holding, in two inter partes reviews, filed by Cambium Learning Group, Kofax, SEGA, and Ubisoft (IPR2014-01453) and Perfect World Entertainment (IPR2015-01026), that the patent at issue was not entitled to the earlier priority date of two Australian provisional applications. The court then declined to overturn the PTAB’s ruling that the patent’s claims are invalid in light of prior art.

So far in 2017, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed eleven cases against Apple. Uniloc subsequently added Samsung and/or LG Electronics (LGE) to several of those campaigns and continued in that vein late this past week, adding HTC (2:17-cv-01558) and Huawei (2:17-cv-00707) to one of them, HTC (2:17-cv-01562) and LGE (4:17-cv-00858) to a second, and HTC (2:17-cv-01561) to a third. Each of these campaigns asserts against the defendants patents that Uniloc received from HP Enterprise (HPE) earlier this year.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed an eleventh 2017 case against Apple (2:17-cv-00708), asserting a patent that RPX has followed from Paragon Solutions LLC to Red Dragon Innovations, LLC in a July assignment and from Red Dragon to Uniloc in another assignment earlier this month. The patent generally relates to monitoring exercise, with Uniloc accusing Apple of infringement through the manufacture and sale of smartwatches that “can be paired to allow a first user to share exercise information wirelessly with a second device”, naming the Series 2, Series 3, and Nike+ models of the Apple Watch.

So far in 2017, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have initiated ten litigation campaigns, all of them against Apple, six asserting patents received from HP Enterprise (HPE), three asserting patents originally developed by Fullpower Technologies, and one asserting Uniloc’s own patent. In August and September, Uniloc added cases against Samsung to four of those campaigns, and it has now added cases against LG Electronics (LGE) to seven of them. All of the cases brought so far this month have been filed in the Northern District of Texas.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed ten separate suits against Apple in 2017, adding a second case, against Samsung, in early August to one of those new campaigns. Within two weeks, Uniloc dropped that Samsung suit, without prejudice, but the NPE has now filed three more cases against Samsung, again adding the tech giant to campaigns begun earlier in the year against Apple. The first suit (2:17-cv-00650) asserts three patents broadly related to a device for monitoring human activity; the second (2:17-cv-00651), a single patent generally related to a device for counting its user’s steps; and the third (2:17-cv-00652), a single patent generally related to waking up a device based on its motion. Uniloc received all five patents, which were developed at Fullpower Technologies, in a May 2017 assignment. Various mobile devices made and sold by Samsung with the capacity to sense motion are the accused products.

The case brought by Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (collectively, “Uniloc”) against Big Fish Games has been transferred from the Eastern District of Texas (2:17-cv-00172) to the Western District of Washington (2:17-cv-01183) by joint stipulation. Although Uniloc agreed to the transfer in this instance, its overall behavior in the wake of TC Heartland has bucked the general trend in which NPEs have either ridden the wave of transfers from Texas or shifted their efforts elsewhere. Many NPEs have increasingly avoided the Eastern District of Texas in new filings while either conceding to venue challenges or dismissing and re-filing existing cases in other venues, with early favorites including the District of Delaware, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Northern District of California. Uniloc, by contrast, has continued to file litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and has shown a greater willingness to push back against venue motions.

Uniloc—Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (as patent owner) and Uniloc USA, Inc. (as exclusive licensee)—has filed yet another lawsuit against Apple (2:17-cv-00571), again asserting one of the 13 patents that the NPE acquired from HP Enterprise (HPE) this past May. The patent generally relates to using a “palm-sized computer” to control a “service” on a network, with infringement allegations focusing on “palm-sized iOS devices” and Apple TV, the former controlling the latter through operation of the Apple TV Remote app. This newest campaign against Apple comes a day after Uniloc added Samsung (2:17-cv-00562) as a defendant in an earlier campaign launched in late May, also against Apple. The complaint against Samsung asserts a single patent, generally related to remotely dialing a telephone number, accusing Samsung of infringement through provision of devices that, in combination, dial a stored telephone number.

In a mid-May 2017 transaction, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) acquired 13 patents from HP Enterprise (HPE). With two cases filed this past week added to three filed back in May, Uniloc has now asserted six of those patents against Apple. On July 12, Uniloc sued Apple (2:17-cv-00534) over a single patent (6,622,018) generally related to exercising remote control over a wireless network, accusing Apple of infringement through the manufacture and sale of iOS and MacOS devices that can control remote devices over a wireless connection through AirPlay, with the iOS devices further alleged to infringe through the Apple TV Remote and Apple Home apps. The NPE then sued Apple (2:17-cv-00535), on that same day, over two patents (6,161,134; 6,446,127) generally related to the exchange of information from a “portable computer” and a telephone. The accused products identified in this second July case are various devices (iPhones, iPads, iPod touches, and Macs) that offer the Continuity feature, which in relevant part allows the user to make a phone call from a separate iPhone. Uniloc has now begun nine new litigation campaigns in 2017, each one against only Apple (so far).

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have closed June as they began the month: suing Apple. Roughly four weeks ago, Uniloc asserted two (7,690,556; 8,872,646) of five patents, received in a single May 2017 assignment, in separate lawsuits against the company, and now, on the last day of June, the NPE has asserted the other three (7,653,508; 7,881,902; 8,712,723) in one suit (2:17-cv-00522) targeting Apple’s iPhones, iPads, and Watches “capable of counting steps or other periodic human motions”. The more recently asserted patents form a family of three generally related to a device for monitoring human activity. Uniloc has now filed seven cases against Apple in 2017 alone.

Since the US Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, RPX has seen an upswing in venue-related filings by both plaintiffs and defendants—with indications that some NPEs may be throwing in the towel on Texas, while others are seemingly digging in. Defendants have also begun to adapt their defensive strategies, asserting more comprehensive interpretations of the patent venue statute and proactively maintaining their right to bring venue challenges down the road.

A variety of NPEs have reacted to the US Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands (2016-0341) by either dismissing and re-filing their cases in other districts or simply conceding venue challenges. In contrast, Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited has further dug its heels into the Eastern District of Texas. Shortly after Uniloc filed a series of new and amended complaints against Google, designed to establish proper venue in the Eastern District, defendants in some of the NPE’s other Texas litigation filed a host of venue motions against it. On June 2, Ubisoft (2:16-cv-00745, 2:16-cv-00781) filed two motions both seeking transfer to the Northern District of California or dismissal for improper venue in litigation targeting its software licensing and notification systems, joined by a similar motion filed by Piriform on June 7 (in a consolidated action against AVG, 2:16-cv-00393) seeking dismissal or transfer to Delaware. Ubisoft filed another such motion in Uniloc’s software update campaign on June 2 (2:17-cv-00175), also seeking transfer to the Northern District of California or dismissal for improper venue, joined by another Northern District transfer/dismissal motion brought by Box (2:17-cv-00173), with campaign co-defendant Zendesk (2:17-cv-00176) filing its own motion to dismiss due to improper venue that same day.

On May 17, 2017, DP Technologies, an affiliate of California-based Fullpower Technologies, assigned five US patents to Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. The NPE, as patent owner, along with its affiliate Uniloc USA, Inc., as exclusive licensee, (collectively, Uniloc), has filed two separate lawsuits against Apple, each asserting one of the patents received from DP Technologies. The first case (2:17-cv-00469) accuses Apple of infringing a single patent (8,872,646) generally related to waking up a device based on its motion through the manufacture and sale of iPhones and the Apple Watch with “Raise to Wake functionality”. The second case (2:17-cv-00470) accuses Apple of infringing another former Fullpower Technologies patent (7,690,556), this one generally related to a device for counting its user’s steps. Infringement allegations focus on iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches capable of calculating steps taken, distance covered, and elevation changed. Both cases have been brought in the Eastern District of Texas, where Uniloc contends venue is proper.

The US Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision on proper venue in patent cases has prompted new filings in multiple litigation campaigns, including in the group voice messaging campaign of Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (Uniloc). In March, before TC Heartland, Uniloc filed three complaints in the Eastern District of Texas against different Google products: Google Hangouts (alleging infringement of 7,535,890; 8,199,747; 8,724,622; 8,995,433); the Android Messages app (alleging infringement of the ‘890, ‘622, and ‘433 patents); and the Allo messaging app (also alleging infringement of the ‘890, ‘622, and ‘433 patents). Just over a week after TC Heartland, Uniloc has responded, at least with respect to its cases against Alphabet (Google) in this campaign, by filing amended complaints in each of those March cases that both drop the ‘890 and ‘433 patents and add lengthy allegations in support of Uniloc’s contention that venue remains proper in the Eastern District. On the same day, Uniloc also filed new, original complaints against Google, asserting the ‘890 and ‘433 patents against Hangouts (2:17-cv-00465), the Android Messages app (2:17-cv-00467), and the Allo messaging app (2:17-cv-00466), again with much more detailed venue allegations.

Uniloc USA, Inc. (as exclusive licensee) and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (as patent owner) (collectively, Uniloc) have filed three new cases against Apple. Each new complaint asserts a single patent not seen before in litigation. In the first case (2:17-cv-00454), the NPE accuses Apple of infringing a patent (6,661,203), generally related to changing how a battery is charged based on temperature, through the manufacture and sale of mobile devices (Apple Watch, laptops, iPhones, iPads, and iPods) with built-in mechanisms to prevent overheating. In the second (2:17-cv-00455), Uniloc asserts a patent (6,580,422), generally related to the remote display of graphics from a mobile device, targeting display and/or playback from iPhones or iPads through Apple TV. In the third suit (2:17-cv-00457), Uniloc asserts a single patent (7,092,671) generally related to remotely dialing a telephone number against using iPads and iPhones in combination to dial a stored telephone number. The patents asserted are three out of a group of 13 patents that Uniloc received in a May 16, 2017 transaction from HP Enterprise.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw a decline in petitions for AIA review filed against NPES in April 2017. While the total number of April petitions, 120, was somewhat less than the three-year monthly average of 150, NPEs were hit by 20 petitions in April, a 68.8 percent decline from 64 the previous month. The dip in April PTAB filings comes in the midst of an overall increase in PTAB petitions over the previous year, with the total number of petitions filed so far in fiscal year 2017 nearing 1,200 as of the date of this report (compared to just over 930 petitions during the same period last year). Prolific private litigants remain a regular target for PTAB petitions, with petitions filed in April against IP Edge LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, while Acacia Research Corporation was the only publicly traded NPE named in petitions brought during that month.

Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed a new case against Apple (2:17-cv-000258), asserting three patents (8,239,852; 8,838,976; 9,414,199) that name Uniloc co-founder Craig S. Etchegoyen as sole inventor. The ‘852 patent generally relates to remote updates to a recognized computing device, with the provision of authenticated software updates for iOS devices identified as the alleged act of infringement. The ‘976 patent generally relates to granting access to content based on the identity of the requesting device; for this patent, Uniloc targets Apple ID authentication services that link a device’s Unique Device Identifier (UDID) to a user account. Finally, the ‘199 patent generally relates to delivering targeted information to a device based on its history, with Apple accused of infringement through provision of its Frequent Locations feature in iOS.

A Texas judge has invalidated a pair of medical records patents (5,682,526; 5,715,451) asserted by Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, “Uniloc”). In an order issued on March 30, District Judge Robert Schroeder III granted multiple motions to dismiss filed by Harris Computer, Netsmart Technologies, Picis, Practice Fusion, and QuadraMed in a consolidated action against Medical Information Technology (d/b/a Meditech) (6:16-cv-00463), ruling that the ‘526 and ‘451 patents are invalid under Alice as impermissibly directed to the abstract ideas of “organizing medical data in a hierarchy” and “creating and storing user-constructed formulas”, respectively. This is the second and final blow dealt to the campaign under Alice, with a single claim from each patent previously found ineligible in an August 2015 decision by Judge Schroeder.

Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (Uniloc ) have filed three new cases, two against Alphabet (Google) (2:17-cv-00214; 2:17-cv-000224) and one against Amazon (2:17-cv-00228). The -214 case against accuses Google of infringing three patents (7,535,890; 8,724,622; 8,995,433) from a first family of five at issue in its group voice messaging campaign through its Android Messages app, while the company is accused in the -224 case of infringing those same three patents, as well as a fourth (8,199,747) from the same family, through its Google Hangout app. Uniloc asserts three patents from a second five-member family (7,853,000; 7,804,948; 8,571,194) against Amazon, targeting provision of Amazon Chime. This family generally relates to initiating conference calls from an instant message app.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (Uniloc) have launched their first new campaign in over six months, suing Box (2:17-cv-00173), Churchill Downs (Big Fish Games) (2:17-cv-00172), Nutanix (2:17-cv-00174), Ubisoft (2:17-cv-00175), and ZenDesk (2:17-cv-00176) over two former IBM patents (6,110,228; 6,564,229). The ‘228 patent generally relates to updating software remotely; the ‘229 patent, to pausing while copying data from one location to another. The NPE has targeted similar features in each of the five defendants’ software products that allow for customer-requested or automated updates over the Internet. Big Fish Games and Ubisoft are accused of infringing the ‘229 patent through their games download portals, within which Uniloc points to the ability to pause the download of a requested game while computer resources are used for other things, before the download later resumes.